AHC: A Democrat Elected President in 1920

Octosteel

...with Wilson still winning in 1916. So no cheating by making Hughes President!

So this is an election most people think is just an impossible one for the Democrats, but surely there is more than meets the eye? For instance, what if the May Day 1920 attacks that Attorney General Palmer predicted actually happen? Would an attempted socialist revolt to bolstering of support for Democrats? Or maybe a Soviet victory in the Polish-Soviet War would rise enough fears to help Democrats?

Or maybe things need to go bad on the Republican side. Perhaps an even more deadlocked convention for the Republicans that only exposed their divisions? Or La Follette storming out in disgust and running third party?

Anything goes!
 
Indicus

Indicus

Wilson doesn't get into World War I, and as the US is the only major Western country to not be affected at all by the war, the economy booms.
 
Last edited:

Octosteel

fjihr said:
Wilson doesn't get into World War I, and as the US is the only major Western country to not be affected at all by the war, the economy booms.
Click to expand...
Can that really be attributed to entering the war? It's not like we lost much in the war anyway and the world was suffering. We were still selling tons of stuff to the countries affected by the war yet we still had the recession.
 

David T

fjihr said:
Wilson doesn't get into World War I, and as the US is the only major Western country to not be affected at all by the war, the economy booms.
Click to expand...

The only way the US stays out of the war is by acquiescence in German unlimited submarine warfare, which is very definitely going to have a negative impact on the US economy by drastically cutting into US foreign trade.
 

David T

Octosteel said:
...with Wilson still winning in 1916. So no cheating by making Hughes President!

So this is an election most people think is just an impossible one for the Democrats, but surely there is more than meets the eye? For instance, what if the May Day 1920 attacks that Attorney General Palmer predicted actually happen? Would an attempted socialist revolt to bolstering of support for Democrats? Or maybe a Soviet victory in the Polish-Soviet War would rise enough fears to help Democrats?

Or maybe things need to go bad on the Republican side. Perhaps an even more deadlocked convention for the Republicans that only exposed their divisions? Or La Follette storming out in disgust and running third party?

Anything goes!
Click to expand...

A bigger Red Scare isn't going to help the Democrats. The Republicans will just be even more anti-Bolshevik than in OTL.

As for La Follette, he will take votes away from both parties (as he would do in OTL in 1924--indeed, he hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans that year).
 
Indicus

Indicus

David T said:
The only way the US stays out of the war is by acquiescence in German unlimited submarine warfare, which is very definitely going to have a negative impact on the US economy by drastically cutting into US foreign trade.
Click to expand...

Yes, but wouldn't that recession come to an end by the time the war finishes?
 

David T

fjihr said:
Yes, but wouldn't that recession come to an end by the time the war finishes?
Click to expand...

The depression of 1920-21 was a world phenomenon. It affected neutral countries as well as recent belligerents. (For example, the recovery of European agriculture is going to affect farm prices in the US--and remember that in 1920 farmers were a much larger percent of the electorate than they are now.)
 

David T

Octosteel said:
Surely there's someone. What if the Democrats ran a hero like General Pershing?
Click to expand...

Pershing was a Republican, and the Pershing-for-president movement in 1920 was mostly Republican. Still, he was mentioned by a few Democrats, and note his refusal to rule out accepting a Democratic nomination:

"The blow dealt Pershing by the Republicans was severe but not mortal. Simultaineously with Harding's drive for the nomination carne the notice that Edward F. Goltra, Democratic national committeeman from Missouri, had invited Laclede, Missouri's favorite son to attend the San Francisco conclave. Goltra denied any ulterior motives such as nominating Pershing, but the idea of Pershing as the Democratic candidate was reinforced by Brooklyn party leader John H. McCooey, who proposed a ticket of Pershing and Alfred E. Smith of New York. McCooey promised to place the general's name in nomination and Assemblyman Louis Civillier, though not a delegate, volunteered his help. 78

"Citing previous commitments with several Ivy League schools for honorary degrees, the general graciously declined the invitation. Reporters would not be content with his polite refusal. Having heard countless denials before, they besieged him with questions. Asked if he would accept the Democratic nomination, Pershing told reporters: 'A man would be a fool to answer that question one way or the other when the nomination has not been tendered him.' Pressed harder, he exclaimed: 'Well, it hasn't been offered me yet!'79 To the last, no one would believe that he did not want to be President.

"The general's party preference was always Republican, but his candidacy fared better in San Francisco than Chicago. As the Democrats struggled for four days and forty-four ballots seeking a candidate who would carry the necessary two-thirds vote, one lone delegate on the twenty-fifth ballot cast his vote for General Pershing. Seven months of time, energy, and money had come to an end in the heat of San Francisco's Civic Auditorium..."

http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/publicat/history/full-text/NH1972PershingPres.pdf

In a sufficiently deadlocked convention, could that one vote eventually be multiplied many times?...

(Nevertheless, I don't think the Democrats would have a chance of winning even with a national hero like Pershing or Herbert Hoover. Candidates do matter at the margins, but they cannot overcome fundamentals that are *extremely* unfavorable for their party. And plenty of military heroes have done poorly when it came to electoral politics: Winfield Scott, Winfield Scott Hancock, Leonard Wood, Douglas MacArthur...)
 

Octosteel

David T said:
Pershing was a Republican, and the Pershing-for-president movement in 1920 was mostly Republican. Still, he was mentioned by a few Democrats, and note his refusal to rule out accepting a Democratic nomination:

"The blow dealt Pershing by the Republicans was severe but not mortal. Simultaineously with Harding's drive for the nomination carne the notice that Edward F. Goltra, Democratic national committeeman from Missouri, had invited Laclede, Missouri's favorite son to attend the San Francisco conclave. Goltra denied any ulterior motives such as nominating Pershing, but the idea of Pershing as the Democratic candidate was reinforced by Brooklyn party leader John H. McCooey, who proposed a ticket of Pershing and Alfred E. Smith of New York. McCooey promised to place the general's name in nomination and Assemblyman Louis Civillier, though not a delegate, volunteered his help. 78

"Citing previous commitments with several Ivy League schools for honorary degrees, the general graciously declined the invitation. Reporters would not be content with his polite refusal. Having heard countless denials before, they besieged him with questions. Asked if he would accept the Democratic nomination, Pershing told reporters: 'A man would be a fool to answer that question one way or the other when the nomination has not been tendered him.' Pressed harder, he exclaimed: 'Well, it hasn't been offered me yet!'79 To the last, no one would believe that he did not want to be President.

"The general's party preference was always Republican, but his candidacy fared better in San Francisco than Chicago. As the Democrats struggled for four days and forty-four ballots seeking a candidate who would carry the necessary two-thirds vote, one lone delegate on the twenty-fifth ballot cast his vote for General Pershing. Seven months of time, energy, and money had come to an end in the heat of San Francisco's Civic Auditorium..."

http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/publicat/history/full-text/NH1972PershingPres.pdf

In a sufficiently deadlocked convention, could that one vote eventually be multiplied many times?...

(Nevertheless, I don't think the Democrats would have a chance of winning even with a national hero like Pershing or Herbert Hoover. Candidates do matter at the margins, but they cannot overcome fundamentals that are *extremely* unfavorable for their party. And plenty of military heroes have done poorly when it came to electoral politics: Winfield Scott, Winfield Scott Hancock, Leonard Wood, Douglas MacArthur...)
Click to expand...
I'm glad you mentioned Wood. Could a worse Red Scare lead to his nomination instead? I know he was tough on the socialists and he was very close to winning in OTL before Lowden had a problem with his progressivism. Maybe his anti-socialist attitude in a Red Scare would carry him over the finish line.
 

David T

OldNavy1988 said:
If Al Smith ran in 1920, would he still have lost?
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. He would lose all the states Cox did and *at least* Kentucky (maybe even NC and other southern states) as well. He might not lose states with large Catholic populations like CT and RI and NY quite as heavily as Cox did, but he would lose them all the same--indeed, he lost NY in 1928.

Smith lost nationally by more than seventeen points nationally in 1928. And if anything he would do worse in 1920.
 

OldNavy1988

David T said:
Oh, absolutely. He would lose all the states Cox did and *at least* Kentucky (maybe even NC and other southern states) as well. He might not lose states with large Catholic populations like CT and RI and NY quite as heavily as Cox did, but he would lose them all the same--indeed, he lost NY in 1928.

Smith lost nationally by more than seventeen points nationally in 1928. And if anything he would do worse in 1920.
Click to expand...

How bad of a candidate was Smith? Where did he stand on the issues of the era?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
fjihr said:
Wilson doesn't get into World War I, and as the US is the only major Western country to not be affected at all by the war, the economy booms.
Click to expand...
Or due to the warring nations being unable to repay their loans to the US, or just the ninevitable collapse of the economy in Europe due to the war, start a global recession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top